GHANMA vs GARCIA, et al.

25CV003272: GHANMA vs GARCIA, et al. 06/08/2026 Hearing on Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted (VSP) in Department 8D

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to “Public Notice – Civil Division – Wednesday Law and Motion Calendar” any oral arguments regarding this tentative ruling will be heard in Department 8D, located at 500 G Street, Sacramento, CA, the Hon. Julie G. Yap presiding. Should argument be requested by either party, the requesting party must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615, by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing, request the hearing, and notify the opposing party of the location and time of hearing pursuant to Local Rule 1.06.

At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

The Court encourages parties to appear remotely for the hearing on the tentative ruling through the Court’s Zoom Application. But, any party wishing to appear in person may do so, provided that party notifies the Court by 4:00 the Court day before the hearing. The parties may join the Zoom session for hearing on the tentative ruling by audio and/or video through the following link: https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16113421868 SIP Address: 16113421868@sip.zoomgov.com (833) 568-8864 ID: 16113421868 Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956.

Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.Pdf A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with

25CV003272: GHANMA vs GARCIA, et al. 06/08/2026 Hearing on Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted (VSP) in Department 8D

a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided

***NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G. ST. SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 25 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8D OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ALL PAPERS FOR THIS DEPARTMENT MUST BE FILED AT THIS NEW LOCATION AND WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED AT THE HALL OF JUSTICE. ALL HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE AT THIS NEW LOCATION****

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06(D). Plaintiff’s counsel is directed to contact opposing counsel forthwith to advise counsel of Local Rule 1.06 and the Court’s tentative ruling procedure. If Plaintiff’s counsel is unable to contact opposing counsel prior to the hearing, Plaintiff’s counsel shall be available at the hearing, in person or remotely (telephonically or by video conference via Zoom as stated in the introductory notice to today’s tentative rulings), in the event opposing counsel appears without following the procedures set forth in Local Rule 1.06(B).

Plaintiff Shaimaa Ibrahim Ghanma’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Deem Matters Specific in Requests for Admission Admitted, or in the Alternative, to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admission from Defendant VSP Vision Care Inc. (“VSP”) is ruled upon as follows.

Plaintiff served the at issue discovery requests on October 7, 2025. (Yoest Decl., ¶ 2.) VSP served responses on November 24, 2025. (Yoest Decl., ¶ 4.)

As Plaintiff has acknowledged that VSP has served responses to requests for admission, a motion to deem matters admitted is inappropriate. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.28.) Plaintiff makes no argument that timely responses were not served, but rather that VSP’s responses are “improper.” The appropriate motion here would be a motion to compel further responses pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.290.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV003272: GHANMA vs GARCIA, et al. 06/08/2026 Hearing on Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted (VSP) in Department 8D

To the extent that Plaintiff’s motion seeks further responses in the alternative, the motion is not accompanied by a separate statement, as is required for a motion to compel further responses. (See (CRC, Rule 3,1345, subd. (a)(2).) California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345, subdivision (a) requires that a separate statement be included with any motion to compel further responses to discovery. (CRC, Rule 3,1345, subd. (a)(2).) While the Court may allow the submission of a “concise outline of the discovery request and each response in dispute” in lieu of a separate statement, the Court declines to do so here. (CRC Rule 3.1345, subd. (b)(2); Code Civ.

Proc. § 2033.300, subd. (b)(2).) A motion to compel is properly denied if no separate statement in full compliance with the rules accompanies the motion. (See Mills v. U.S. Bank (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 871, 893; St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 777-778.) Because Plaintiff failed to properly file a separate statement in support of a motion to compel further responses, the Court cannot even determine which discovery requests are at issue with respect to the instant motion. As none of Plaintiff’s moving papers identify which requests Plaintiff is moving to compel.

Plaintiff merely argues that VSP’s objections are boilerplate and improper, which does not meet Plaintiff’s burden to inform the Court of what matters are at issue in the instant motion.

Plaintiff’s motion to deem requests for admission admitted or for further responses is therefore DENIED.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.